Wait, consider the entire blog before you draw a conclusion.

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

The professional regulation of teachers is anomalous compared with most other professions because the entry-level examinations commonplace in other professions are not required for licensure as a teacher.  Unlike their counterparts in medicine, law, or engineering, teachers face no gateway examination to secure their licensure. This departure from the norm is more than an administrative difference; it highlights a unique stance on assessing competence and readiness. Where other professions use these exams as a keystone for maintaining high standards and public confidence, teaching leans solely on educational attainment and practical experience.  

The case for introducing a competency examination for teacher certification depends upon identifying the essential knowledge every teacher requires. There are, at a minimum, four groups of competencies: pedagogical knowledge; classroom and student management; subject-matter knowledge; and emotional intelligence.  

Given the variability in teacher education programs, it is optimistic to assume they prepare beginning teachers uniformly in these areas. An independent examination would set a universal benchmark that every applicant for certification would need to meet to begin teaching.  

The absence of an entry-level examination within the teaching profession calls for a deeper examination of our standards and expectations. The notion of introducing such a test, especially in times of teacher shortages, might initially seem counter-productive and counter-intuitive. But, wait, consider my argument for its potential as a strategic enhancement to the profession's integrity and public esteem.  

The practice of lowering entry barriers as a quick fix to fill vacancies is a precarious long-term solution to teacher shortages. Lowering standards might temporarily put an adult in front of students, but there are long-term consequences for educational quality. A hastily expanded teaching force is ill-equipped to address the challenges of today’s classrooms and increases the risk of diminishing the quality of education and eroding public trust in the system.  

Conversely, the proposal to integrate an entry-level examination, complemented by a system of conditional licensure, is a nuanced alternative. This model does not just impose an additional hurdle; rather, it aims to elevate the entire profession. Conditional licensure would be a bridge for those on the cusp of professional competence if the rigor of standardized testing was paired with supportive measures like systematic professional learning and mentorship. This approach would ensure that all new teachers meet a baseline of competency while requiring them to maintain currency through mandated and ongoing professional learning.  

To create a more effective and personalized approach to conditional licensure in teaching, the integration of mandatory professional learning would be based on the specific competency gaps identified on the entry-level examination. Upon completion of the examination, applicants would receive a report detailing their performance across various competencies, identifying both strengths and areas where mastery had not been demonstrated.  

The report would become the foundation for a personalized professional learning plan (PLP) developed in consultation among the teacher, the teacher’s mentor, and a professional learning coordinator. The plan would outline learning objectives tailored to address the competency gaps identified by the entry-level examination as well as professional learning activities designed to meet the objectives. These activities might range from workshops and online courses to specific teaching experiences that would be chosen for their relevance to areas in which the teacher needs to demonstrate improvement.  

As the conditionally licensed teachers engage in these targeted learning activities, they would be expected to document their experiences. This documentation would be compiled into a professional learning portfolio. The portfolio would both document the teacher’s progress and provide the basis for regularly scheduled reviews with mentors and coordinators.  

The probationary conditional licensure period would culminate in a final assessment. Conditionally licensed teachers who demonstrate mastery of the competencies initially identified as lacking would earn full licensure. The assessment would involve a comprehensive review of the professional learning portfolio and classroom observations documenting how the teacher addressed gaps in their competencies.  Successful demonstration of competency supported by a record of personalized professional development and application in teaching would lead to the awarding of full licensure.  

This approach would ensure that new teachers meet baseline competency standards and engage in continuous, reflective practice aimed at addressing their specific needs. It would enhance teacher effectiveness in the classroom and contribute to the overall quality of education.  

This approach addresses not just the symptom of teacher shortages but also the underlying need for a highly competent, well-prepared educational workforce. By setting a high entry standard and providing avenues for all aspiring teachers to reach it, we reinforce the profession's prestige and ensure a consistent quality of education. In addition, this strategy draws attention to the importance of adaptability and lifelong learning.  

Implementing an entry-level exam with conditional licensure balances the immediate need to address teacher shortages with the long-term vision of cultivating a robust, respected teaching force. This carefully calibrated approach would meet today's labour force challenges while safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the teaching profession. 

Navigating Truth: The Role of Schools in Countering Conspiracy Rhetoric

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In a democratic system, trust in institutions is essential. Conspiracy theories introduce doubt in these systems, leading to reduced faith in institutions. This lack of trust can lead to social divisions creating an "us vs. them" mentality. Conspiracy theories divert attention from issues that deserve attention, impeding government operations.  

Trust in democratic institutions, such as the courts, elections, and independent media are foundational elements of democracy and are checks against abuses of power and authoritarian governments. Those whose goal it is to weaken democracy must first work to undermine public trust in those institutions which serve to defend democracy.  

As someone who began his career as a social studies teacher, I think it is crucial for schools to equip students with skills that enable them to discern credible information from conspiracy theories. Schools should prioritize the development of students' ability and disposition to question the credibility and reliability of sources. Learners should learn to differentiate fact from fiction, factual statements from statements of opinion, and to understand the inherent assumptions and biases in any given argument.  

Part of their preparation should include acquainting students with common logical fallacies. Using real-world examples, teachers can effectively point out and illustrate fallacies such as ad hominem attacks or circular reasoning. Students should be encouraged to identify fallacies in daily situations, public pronouncements and media. Media literacy should be a central component of every student’s education. They should be taught to evaluate sources and understand the pitfalls of online echo chambers and algorithmically driven content.  

Students must learn the difference between fact and opinion because it helps them navigate the information they encounter every day. By distinguishing between what’s accurate and what’s inaccurate, they are better able to make informed decisions, form their own beliefs, construct sound arguments, and avoid being swayed by misleading information. Knowing something about a topic also helps them recognize when someone is trying to manipulate or deceive them.  

Students should become familiar with enduring stereotypes and tropes. Such knowledge fosters critical thinking and promotes cultural awareness and sensitivity. Recognizing the origin, evolution, and impact of these narratives helps students challenge and deconstruct prejudiced beliefs.  

Students should learn about the social psychology of conspiracy theories and the influence of cognitive biases like the desire for pattern recognition or the need to find explanations for significant events. Teachers can use historical examples and contemporary case studies.  

Open discussion is key to the approach I am suggesting. Schools must be safe environments where students can critically analyze popular conspiracy theories. Respectful debate using logic and evidence is essential.  

Schools can and should create informed citizens capable of navigating the complex terrains of truth and misinformation. 

Man Bites Dog in Penticton

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

The phrase "man bites dog" is an example of a journalistic aphorism that means unusual events are newsworthy. One rarely finds a ‘man bites dog’ story in education, but just such a story jumped out at me from one of the education newsfeeds that I read.  

The headline “Superintendent applauded for school closure plan” caught my attention for two reasons. One, I do not recall many instances in which attendees at a school board meeting applauded the superintendent. Two, the audience was applauding the superintendent’s presentation of a long-range facilities strategy . . . wait for it . . . that included a proposal to close three schools in the Okanagan Skaha School District (#67).  

As I understand it, the plan presented by the superintendent proposed to reallocate funds to educational programming by reducing the inefficiency of building use. The superintendent's presentation of the plan to trustees and the public was met with unexpected applause, signaling broad support for a plan that would normally arouse anxieties about or significant opposition to school closures.  

There are several reasons I am writing about this apart from the ‘man bites dog’ dimension. First, to earn the support of an audience and board for a plan that would typically engender hostility implies to me that the superintendent and his senior team had communicated clearly and transparently with the board and the audience. Second, the support the plan received implied that the board and the audience recognized the benefits that reallocated funding from closing under-utilized facilities would bring students outweighed the immediate anxieties that school closures typically arouse.  

When I read the story, I, too, applauded both the superintendent and the board. I applauded the Superintendent and senior team for their willingness to expend the effort to present a plan that nine times out of ten generates hostility. I applauded the Board for its recognition that underutilized facilities require resources (about $1.5 million in this case) that are better spent on programming for students. Too often boards in a similar position would be unwilling to make such a decision.  

My guess is that the audience likely had people in it who had attended the schools affected by the closures or who have children in those schools. If my hunch is correct, the audience reaction likely means that the trustees who made what I think was the right decision are unlikely to be punished at the ballot box. But, even if they are, they made the right decision to put students before their own political interests or ambitions. Bravo!

How comparative education data are used

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

To avoid making egregious mistakes and embarrassing myself, I have several respected colleagues who read my blogs before I post them. A reader of last week’s blog suggested that I devote an entire blog to the reasons why comparative analyses are helpful and to whom.  

Comparative analysis involves examining and interpreting data from different schools, districts, or educational systems to identify patterns, trends, and areas in need of improvement. Such analyses are valuable for many stakeholders, including parents, educators, policymakers, advocacy groups, researchers, and others.  

Benchmarking and performance evaluation are the primary reasons why Canadian provinces and territories cooperate under the ambit of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) in the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) and in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PCAP and PISA data are useful starting places for answering the question how are we doing in comparison with other jurisdictions now and over time.  

Benchmarking performance is the first step in the process of performance evaluation which, if done well, will help inform policy and decision making. Governments and policymakers use comparative data to evaluate the effectiveness of educational policies and programs. By comparing data across different jurisdictions, they can identify best practices and areas needing improvement. This information can guide the development of more effective educational strategies and policies.  

Comparative analyses are also essential in educational research. Researchers use data to study various aspects of the education system. Comparative data contribute to understanding the effectiveness of education changes and the relationship between education and socio-economic outcomes.  

From my perspective, among the most important contributions of comparative analyses is understanding educational inequities. Comparative data analysis can reveal disparities in educational outcomes across different regions, socio-economic groups, or ethnic backgrounds, indicating where policy interventions to promote equity in education are needed. Without comparing data overtime, it would be impossible to know if efforts to reduce inequalities and produce more equitable outcomes were successful.  

Comparative data can inform us about where resources are most needed, and they can help in allocating efficiently to where they are most needed. Comparative data analysis helps reveal disparities and needs across different regions or demographics and is helpful to decision-makers in evaluating their budgetary allocations, leading, one hopes, to allocations that are economical, efficient, and effective. Regular comparative analysis fosters accountability. Monitoring and reporting on performance metrics is a key responsibility of boards and ministries of education.  

Comparative analysis is a tool for strategic planning. It helps the governors of systems to set long-term goals and administrators to establish objectives based on empirical evidence. Comparative data analysis is essential for advocacy organizations that wish changes. Organizations focused on education use comparative data to highlight disparities in access to programs or outcomes.  

Comparative data analysis in elementary and secondary education is a powerful tool for improving educational outcomes. It helps us understand how distinct factors contribute to student success and helps decision-makers make informed decisions to enhance the quality of education.  

For all these reasons it is important and valuable for Canada and its provinces and territories to further their efforts to produce consistent, reliable and comparable education statistics